Posted
by
timothyon Thursday February 13, 2014 @02:34PM
from the trying-to-take-ransom-for-ransom dept.

Nerval's Lobster writes "King, the gaming developer behind the monster hit Candy Crush Saga, has attracted a fair amount of criticism over the past few weeks over its attempt to trademark the word 'candy,' which isn't exactly an uncommon term. The company followed up that trademarking attempt by firing off takedown notices at other developers who use 'candy' in the titles of their apps. But things only got emotional in the past few days, when indie developer Albert Ransom published an open letter on his Website that excoriates King for what basically amounts to bullying. Ransom claims that he published CandySwipe in 2010, a full two years before Candy Crush Saga hit the market, and that the two games bear a number of similarities; after opposing King's attempts to register a trademark, Ransom found that his rival had taken things to a whole new level by purchasing the rights to a game called Candy Crusher and using that as leverage to cancel the CandySwipe trademark. Ransom claims he spent three years working on his game, and that King is basically robbing his livelihood. King was not effusive in its response. 'I would direct you to our stance on intellectual property,' a spokesperson for the company wrote in an email to Slashdot, which included a link to a letter posted online by King CEO Riccardo Zacconi. 'At this time, we do not have any comment to add beyond what is outlined in this letter.' Zacconi's various defenses in the letter seem a moot point in the context of CandySwipe, considering how Ransom has already abandoned the prospect of fighting to protect his intellectual property. But the two developers' letters help illustrate how downright nasty the casual-gaming industry has become over the past several quarters, as profits skyrocket and people attempt to capitalize on others' success."

Same thing happened to Samsung. Here's a digital picture frame [engadget.com] they made in 2005 and sold in 2006. Long before Apple even came out with the iPhone much less the iPad. (Yes the back doesn't look like a tablet - that's beside the point since it wasn't a tablet.) After you've seen the picture frame you realize Samsung didn't copy the iPad's appearance when they made the Galaxy Tab 10.1 [arstechnica.com]. They just took their old digital picture frame design (black face, silver/white trim, and yes rounded corners) and repurposed it as a tablet. Even their name/logo is in the same location.

But because almost nobody saw/bought their digital picture frame, they just assume the iPad was first and anything that looked like it must be a copy. I'm of the opinion that with minimalist designs like this, pretty much everyone will come up with the same design. But if you insist there was copying, it's far more likely that it was Apple who lifted Samsung's digital picture frame design when they were settling on the iPad's appearance.

Good analogy. Another example is of my friend Christiaan Rendle, who was also involved in TangoDropBox.com. He made a game called "AirDrop", Apple came out with a product/service called "AirDrop" and the fight ensued. I'm not privy to the details, but it's still alive as well...

I know the Slashdot meme of Apple suing over 'rounded corners' is prevalent. However, the actual design patent Apple were suing over contained numerous clauses (including operational UI elements as rendered by software) that the courts evaluate for infringement as a whole. It had nothing to do with Apple claiming violation of a singular clause of their design patent.

The only way that the Samsung/Apple example resembles the summary is that it involves lawyers and 'IP'.

I know the Slashdot meme of Apple suing over 'rounded corners' is prevalent. However, the actual design patent Apple were suing over contained numerous clauses (including operational UI elements as rendered by software) that the courts evaluate for infringement as a whole. It had nothing to do with Apple claiming violation of a singular clause of their design patent.

A design patent is taken in totality, not on a claim by claim basis. An infringement is upheld when the 'copy' substantially violates the overall design, not just a single elemental claim.

Obviously, when describing a design, you need to describe each element that makes up that design. Rounded corners and the rectangular proportion are just two of many of those elements. How else can a design be described if not by listing the elements that make up the design? If it was a CAD file that described the design,

In the Samsung suit there were many design and utility patents that they were alleged to have infringed.

Regarding the design patent you linked above, it was determined that Samsung had not infringed on that patent. Primarily because the patent's design when taken as a whole was not being infringed - even though some subset of its elemental features do. With a design patent like that, you end up with a very narrow definition of infringement - especially when it is so heavily superseded by similar prior art.

What the summary describes is a lowest of low attempt that goes well beyond any real legal entitlement

you read this part, right?

Ransom found that his rival had taken things to a whole new level by purchasing the rights to a game called Candy Crusher and using that as leverage to cancel the CandySwipe trademark

if the timeline is CandyCrusher > CandySwipe > Candy Crush Saga... the entity w/ the rights to CandyCrusher has a real legal entitlement. it really sucks for the developer of CandySwipe, but it sounds like it was legally outmaneuvered.

Only if the single word is approved and the court allows using a single word subset within a larger trademark as being actionable. If every single word is suddenly 'owned' by someone because it's part of their trademarked name, that dramatically reduces the available trademark space. And buying a previously trademarked 'name', unless identical still does not mean you have grounds to claim 'market confusion' - as the product name did not apply to the product at the time the trademark was applied for. Next th

You are trying to argue, rather than reading. That was your first problem. Apple won because they were the first to file a court case. Samsung has an Apple-looking device that pre-dates Apple's devices. Time wise, Apple followed Samsung, and Samsung was consistent and persistent. That Apple's design looks remarkably Samsung-like, and Samsing copied Samsung's look and feel (which Apple may have copied in the mean time) apparently didn't make any diffference.

If I make a phone in a diamond shape (just pulling something something out of the air that is easy to describe), and then YOU make a phone that is a diamond shape, then you might have violated my patent, even if you had previously manufactured can openers in a diamond shape.

They're different kinds of devices. Further, they are different kinds of devices that are not very likely to b

I learned the hard way about fighting larger companies with legal teams on staff. After about $5k in lawyer fees, we were left with no resolution to the conflict. I know this is 'Merica and the legal system is our crown-jewel, but it's not an environment where the "little guy" has a chance...

DropBox literally has 14 people on-staff in their legal team, not to mention their main legal contact JOHN L. SLAFSKY is with "WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI" and is giant:

Federal registration is not required to establish rights in a trademark. Common law rights arise from actual use of a mark and may allow the common law user to successfully challenge a registration or application. "

Hmm... Hasbro owns Candy Land, and they also published through Wizards of the Coast a little role-playing game called Star Wars: Saga Edition. And we know Hasbro has more than a few lawyers... how do we bring this to their attention so they can kill two attempted trademarks with one lawsuit or legal nastygram?

Since there's another developer with a similar product and a similar name that shipped well before, you think he would have no end of lawyers offering up services just for a cut of the juicy Candy Mountain they can take a big chunk from.

If one side is going to play the legal angle then have no qualms about doing the same.

Isn't being a legal troll a full time job? It's quite lucrative if you have a team of lawyers to back it up, but "Hey, I'll take you to court as soon as I find a lawyer who accepts my credit card" will probably be laughed off more than this letter (IANAL though.)

One of life's great mysteries is how achieving wealth tends to make people more greedy. For example, studies have shown that, as a percentage of income, charitable giving tends to be inversely proportional to income. Here you have a company that has found tremendous success, and in response to that success they become more greedy and try to shut everyone down.

I think human nature is not to just want success. Human nature is to want to win and stomp on the corpses of your competition.

One of life's great mysteries is how achieving wealth tends to make people more greedy. For example, studies have shown that, as a percentage of income, charitable giving tends to be inversely proportional to income. Here you have a company that has found tremendous success, and in response to that success they become more greedy and try to shut everyone down.

I think human nature is not to just want success. Human nature is to want to win and stomp on the corpses of your competition.

It's not a mystery at all. The system is set up in such a way that companies are forced to defend their trademarks. If they don't, they lose them. In addition, people with more are going to go to greater lengths to ensure that they don't lose what they have. Some companies are much more aggressive than others and some resort to what should be categorized as extortion. But, it's not going to change unless we find a way to change the system.

When comparing how much people give for charity, percentage is all that matters. If someone makes $50k/yr and gives $5k/yr to charity, and someone else makes $5,000,000/yr and gives $20k to charity, do you really consider them to be more generous since they gave FOUR TIMES the amount? No, they are less generous. They would be giving 0.4% of their salary vs. 10.0%. The impact on their lives would be non-existent. The point of charitable giving is that you are giving up something for other people -- you

It's not a mystery at all. The system is set up in such a way that companies are forced to defend their trademarks. If they don't, they lose them.

That's not true. Yes, they have to "defend" them, but the implications of your statement is the opposite of reality.

They could "defend" them by sending a letter asking the recipient to apply for a no-cost license granting commercial use of the trademark. If everyone using your trademark is registered to do so at a zero-rate, you have successfully defended it. There is no requirement to stop anyone from using it. Ever. And the way you are stating it is implying the "must stop others" reading, which is

*Faux* charity. A lot of people try to use "charitable contributions" as a way to scam the system. To me, the guy who is struggling to pay his rent but still kicks in $20 is a lot nicer person than the dude who rolls up in his BMW and gives $100. Of course, the charities themselves don't want to say something like that, because they can do a lot more with the $100 than the $20, so they want to make everyone feel special so they'll keep donating.

and their Cellbots project -- I scooped them by around six months, and even offer to share my code with them. What I got was a project manager telling me that I was just a hobbyist and my product didn't exist. What he got was me giving him one of my PCBs to him, then closing his hand around it, and asking him if this doesn't exist why is it causing you pain?
When they started giving out the Google ADK board at Maker Faire 2011, I made the rounds to give my board to people half an hour before... including to the Google guys. If anyone was at the Bay Area Maker Faire, they probably will remember how the Robots Everywhere Antbot worked, and the Google Cellbot sat there victim of wifi overload.
If something's bigger than you, and you want to win, bite the shins and punch the nuts. Only way.

Betas are told that everything happens by accident, and criminals are only really found amongst the working classes. The reality is very different.

When casual gaming was discovered to be the new growth area for gaming, very serious criminals took interest in the market, and became their MOBSTER-IDENTICAL methods to gain control of the action.

Their experts noted that most casual games (at the time) were 'published' (to use the word very lightly) by individuals and tiny companies with no real clout. So, the experts advised the criminal thugs to simply STEAL the current games considered to have the best prospects. Steal the design. Steal the assets. Hell, even steal the code if possible.

The experts advising the criminal thugs argued thus. Focus on getting as rich as possible, as quickly as possible, by turning the 'amateur hour' of casual gaming into something as big as organised gambling or AAA console game publishing. "Use your lawyers to threaten the people you steal from, and then, if needed, to delay court action by as many years as possible."

"In the meantime, use your gigantic profits to buy off most of the people you steal from. After all, they were making pennies from their work, whereas you, using their stolen games, will be making so much money, a tiny fraction of your income will seem like an astonishing windfall to the people you may have to eventually pay-off. "

Now the criminal thugs have long since established themselves, and have the income to place politicians, computer companies and law enforcement into their pockets. America was built on such corporate criminality. America LOVES profit, not whining by little guys who never really made much money, but whose ideas and work had so much potential when illegally transferred to ruthless crooks.

The legal system, especially the civil side, is designed to reward successful criminality, so long as such criminality spreads the wealth to the 'RIGHT' people. Gaining general possession of the word 'Candy' was a simple consequence of money well spent. No legality, no justice, no morality- just money placed into the pockets of the 'right' people.

But the thugs at the top of casual gaming publishing are pikers compared to the people that run Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Apple etc. Look what Microsoft intended to do with the Xbox One, before a massive backlash forced Microsoft to reverse every one of its obscene plans. Look at how Intel is PAYING companies to use its new Baytrail CPU, and PAYING legions of vile shills working for reputation management agencies to flood forums like this with the message that Intel's criminality is 'legal' and 'reasonable' (and this in the face of knowledge about how many times Intel has been successfully prosecuted in court).

Only petty criminals get punished. The big boys are always an essential part of the 'elite' that rule over you. Go read some history, if you are foolish enough not to believe this.

and quickly became annoyed, and eventually uninstalled it. The first annoyance was that it was shilling for money, but the deal breaker was that it wanted me to sign up for facebook so it could spam other people to play the (*&(& game. It was easier to uninstall the game.

I figured I'd do floppy asdfgasdfgasdfg, where you drop a pancake made of asdfg (with some zxcvb, thrown in for good measure) down a near infinite shaft, where irate birds try to peck at it, any contact with their beaks and you lose, so you have to glide to the left and right to get between successive beaks. The speed picks up gradually.

probably because bejeweled is based on another game as well and it has enough differences to survive a court challenge. i played candy crush for a bit and it was a lot of things i found lacking in bejeweled

there used to be lots of board games made by different companies where the basic mechanic was to roll the dice, move, collect some card or so whatever and no one was ever sued because the differences are different enough

lots of Civ/Sim City clones in the app store as well. Clash of clans is one. they are

George W Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, and many of the people on your list bear almost NO resemblance to a modern Republican in terms of political views (e.g. Roosevelt, Eisenhower).

Still, the GP's argument is almost as bad for much the same reason, because if the current Republicans kept getting drubbed in the polls, they'd very quickly become a different party. The parties change their mix of positions about once every 2-3 generations or so -- sometimes much faster. Heck, just look at how different Republicans were today and in the 1990s, the 1970s, the 1950s, and the 1930s.

In your narritive, every recount Bush got fewer votes. Had there been another recount or two, Gore would have won. That is the problem, and why the Supreme Court stepped in. It was almost discovered that *every* election is rigged. We are voting for the winner of WWF matches.

Verified traceable non-anonymous voting. It's how the country was founded, and it worked better the first 100 years than the most recent 100 with anonymous voting. It only had a problem when there was open violent revolt, and the polls weren't physically safe places. As the Civil War is over, open voting, once again, would result in the best result for the country. Lower fraud, easier error correction. Florida's lesson was "anonymous voting allows massive systemic fraud, and no traceability in the syst

Who the fuck cares? Do you seriously think there would have been ANY difference between the 2 of them? Obama has expanded every program liberals hated about Bush including his wars, and Obama is certainly more liberal than Gore. They all want the same thing... power... and they all do the same god damned thing once they get it: Whatever it takes to keep that power.

Yes, that's how it works. You can win the popular vote and lose the election because the election isn't decided on popular vote. There is a popular vote because you can simply add all the votes. It isn't that confusing.

The people vote. The people's vote counts for something. That's popular vote. That the popular vote doesn't determine the winner doesn't mean it is necessarily meaningless, as most polls are national (at least as presented, the analysits go to state level for predictions).

Actually, the Dems won the "popular vote" in the congressional elections as well.

And the Republicans have Texas as well.

It's sixes of one and half a dozen of the other to be honest, but there are reasons to believe that the Dems would have the advantage (hence why only Democrat controlled states are represented in the National Popular Vote Compact. If the Republicans thought they would win,, they would want the popular vote "by hook or by crook", and they would support that initiative. Unless you believe th

That is why many call it Imaginary Property Rights, because it is neither intellectual, nor property, nor rights. Audio, Video, and/or Textual information can be represented as a number. To say someone somehow "magically" "owns" ones a particular sequence of bits is asinine.

I think novelists and authors who publish their works as a professional act deserve some degree of protection for their works. I'll admit I'm torn between the "renewable every seven years" idea and the "lifetime of the author" idea. I'm a lot foggier on derivative works. If someone writes and produces a fantastic Star Trek spinoff, do Roddenberry/Desilu/Paramout/... have a right to prevent it? How about if it's about Federation civilians, you won't even see Starships or Starbases - not even a Starfleet

Part of the reason for the electoral college system was to make elections actually slant more dramatically one way or the other.

No it wasn't. The electoral college was not designed with a two-party system in mind (the greatest evidence of this is the elections of 1796 and 1800). No, it was designed with Congress as a backup in case no one won a majority, because they expected that to happen quite often once Washington was no longer in the picture. In fact, the framers were more worried about a couple of large states ganging up than what we would now think of as issue-driven parties. (This is the main reason for the large state/s

". shapes are wildly different"
no, they aren't. most of them a slightly different.

A square shiny candy vs. a candy valentine heart.
A butterscotch candy vs. a gingerbread man.
A candy apple vs. a banana.
A blue circle with "CS" in it vs. a blue candy with a ridge in the middle.
You honestly think an apple and a banana are the same shape? A gingerbread man and an amorphous blob? I don't get it.

Plus the font is identical.

A cursive font with all letters linked is "identical" to a printed font? The exclamation point alone is short & fat in Candy Crush, but tall and skinny in Candy Swipe. I don't understand wh

Just a casual browsing of the iTunes App Store makes me wonder what the real story is. If you click on Show All Versions for each of the free/paid iPhone/iPad versions of CandySwipe they were first published in May 2012 (not even close to 2010), abandoned, then there were updates to all of them around 27/28 Jan 2014, and now there is all this debate. Was there a PC/Android version published earlier?

Well, you know what you do when someone pushes you around. You FIGHT BACK. Punch them in the face if you're on the school yard, or ridicule and sue them if you're in the corporate world.

A bully is someone who picks on someone because they know that they can't/won't fight back. If your problem is the latter, then it's simple to do as you say. If you simply *can't* fight back, because the other party will destroy you if you try, then that's a different story. What you advocate is simply self-destructive stupidity in the name of pride.

You've obviously never been bullied. Hitting a bully back doesn't work. The two times I did, one got me suspended and disciplined (no "charges" for the bully) and the other time, the bully came back with 5 others and cornered me. Fighting back doesn't work, and those that suggest it were annoyed with people but the people annoying them weren't bullies.

You've obviously never been bullied. Hitting a bully back doesn't work. The two times I did, one got me suspended and disciplined (no "charges" for the bully) and the other time, the bully came back with 5 others and cornered me. Fighting back doesn't work, and those that suggest it were annoyed with people but the people annoying them weren't bullies.

This.

People keep pretending that bullies have some kind of code of honour, that if you stand up to them they'll just give up and accept you are the boss.

This is bullshit from people who've never lived in the real world, of course a bully is going to come back with 5 of his mates once you've bloodied his nose. In fact they will almost never start bullying unless they have a serious numerical advantage (well they are cowards, but cowards in numbers are still dangerous). You've embarrassed them, they nee

Bullies sense weakness. When I went to a new school after years in the same one with untouchable bullies (son of the dean). Somone grabbed something of mine and they were playing keep away. I ran to get it, and it would be thrown to someone else. I told the next guy to give it to me, "or else". He laughed, so I ran towards him, like I wanted to intercept it. He threw it to someone else, but I didn't stop, and I laid him out flat. I turned to the person he threw it to, and said "may I have it back ple

Same experience here. I was bullied by a group of six or so kids. I could have probably fought them one on one, but their friends would have no doubt joined in. Had I been foolish to fight all six at once, I would have been beaten up and then they would have bullied me over that as well. Sometimes fighting back might help, but doing so in the wrong time can get you in trouble at best and seriously injured at worst.

What people who are bullied need to do is find people to side with them and help them. (E